There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that points to the foolishness of getting hitched (see also almost any PUA blog). However, for the Good Christian that wants to have sex, marriage is the only option, risky as it may be. As an aspiring Good Christian with a healthy appetite for sex, I have good reason to consider the consequences of wedding bells.
Is sex worth a lifetime of being tied to one (divorce/remarriage is not an option) person? Will it restrict my ability to succeed in my career? Can I still achieve my dreams? Will I be crushed with responsibility? Perhaps my libido will wane–or at least become manageable–by the time I’m 30 and my main reason for marriage will have all but disappeared. Or maybe having a wife will prove to be more of a liability than an asset and I’ll become bitter and resentful in my declining years. It’s also possible that if I choose not to get married I’ll become bitter and resentful of that choice instead. I’ll be haunted by the experience I passed up and live through discontentment.
The Bible seems to give mixed messages about it. From what I understand, Paul says we’re free to choose whether or not to get married (though he wishes we would stay single for the sake of the gospel) and Proverbs talks back and forth about the good, bad, and ugly results of marriage (Proverbs 18:22, 19:14, 21:9, 31:10). It seems that it boils down to if I believe that the person I choose will be more of a benefit in the long run.
Is it worth it to trade a large amount of freedom for companionship?
You already know the answer to that final question. But is it the right question?
I believe you ought to lean toward getting married, and that’s “you” in the particular and not in the proverbial. That is, I think your sex drive, personally, is something you can’t ignore with the same frivolity as I can ignore mine.
Running counter to that is Marriage 2.0, which is entirely against your interests. As Athol Kay puts it, your default position should be not to get married and only make an exception for an exceptional person.
So you have two conflicting forces: your internal state defaults to marriage, and the external conditions default to bachelorhood. It seems like a lose-lose situation.
But if you stay single, you lose automatically. If you marry, you have a decent shot at making it work. Consider:
1) You have a basic understanding of Game. With six months’ concentrated effort you could outplay 95% of men. In a year, you could be a master. Compare that to an associate’s degree.
2) You are a Christian virgin looking for a Christian virgin (or at least very low N). If you bag one of those, the statistics predict a small chance of divorce.
3) Your SMV won’t peak until your mid 30s. You can still date mid 20s in your early 30s without raising a fuss, and marry at 35 after a 3 to 4-year courtship.
4) You are selling your male goods (commitment) on the sexual market at a time of low supply, which almost offsets the rarity of the female goods you’re looking to buy.
I can’t vouch for your looks one way or another, but theoretically you can aim a point or two higher in looks as long as your absolute rank is higher. That’s the most stable, happy coupling (theoretically).
One possible problem is that society the world at large is getting unstable and strange. There’s a lot of uncertainty in the air, and we have a vague idea that something bad is coming. Probably a protracted depression. Possibly a war. Maybe nuclear war at that. When we have these strong intuitions, our bodies tell us to hold off on having babies (I think that’s one of the reasons birth rates are down). But it’s an irrational feeling.
In the very worst case, nuclear war may kill a lot of people in absolute numbers, but it probably would be a minority of the human race in terms of percentages. In the very worst case, you either die in the blast, or adapt. Same as if you don’t have babies.
Maybe I’m getting off topic. Here’s a quick summary.
You understand women’s darker sides. And you know the risks of the current legal climate. But there’s only a chance you’d lose on that gamble, whereas you definitely lose if you don’t play. And you personally have very good chances of success. If something goes wrong…well that’s gambling. You can whine about it on your blog.
Sheesh, that was long. Surprisingly coherent, too, considering my recent stuff. Can I make a post out of it?
Quick elucidation: The female sexual market good is (primarily) sexual exclusivity.
Really feels like you hit the nail on the head. The only doubt I have is about my automatic loss in dismissing marriage. That only makes sense if “winning” means having a sexual partner and my own progeny. I could choose to make my definition of winning something entirely different, which is what I presume you’re doing.
3 presents another option where I put off getting married for up to another decade and lose nothing. That’s enticing.
“If something goes wrong…well that’s gambling. You can whine about it on your blog.”
lol that’s what blogs are for, right?
In short, no. I’m not changing the definition, I just don’t think it’s worth it for me from a cost-benefit perspective. It’s not a decision set in stone. I consistently practice and study Game for its intangible benefits (it overlaps with my studies of human nature), so it’s not inconceivable that I could change my mind over the course of a decade.
To put it in a metaphor, I didn’t know I was in a race until two years ago. But I’m strolling that direction anyway and enjoying the scenery, and I see a lot of men passed out on the side of the road. If I see the pack ahead and they’re all tired, maybe I’ll give it a go for the hell of it.
Or maybe not.